understand the foundation of contemporary progressivism. today's liberals many of their ideas as much as their inspiration to their predecessors. universal health care for instance was on the 19th while progressive platform. liberals today are beginning to acknowledge this. progress and change have been restored to their original place in the liberal vocabulary. progressivism came to the forefront of our national politics for the first time in the election of 1912. this election was a truly transformative election. the two leading candidates for the progressive democrat woodrow wilson and the progressive parties theodore roosevelt. the conservative candidate, william howard taft received less than 25% of the popular vote and carried only two states. imagine a result like that in 2008, conservatives would be apocalyptic.

one of the central features in the 1912 campaign, theodore roosevelt continues to perplex conservatives. he promised to remake america with his brand of new nationalism in the 1912 election openly running as a progressive if conservatives have always held a certain affinity for him. today the legacy rages on. in his new book, theodore roosevelt's progressive party and the transformation of american democracy, sidney milkis tells the story of the 1912 election is one of the major turning points in american history. an election which continues to influence today's political debate. milkis writes about the characters and decisions of the campaign including the ever elusive theodore roosevelt. i will and should use our author now and yield the podium to hamper remarks before introducing our other speakers after professor milkis has concluded.

sidney milkis is the miller professor of politics and assistant director of academic programs, the miller center public affairs at the university of virginia. he is the co-author of many excellent books including the president and the parties and politics of regulatory change. please welcome sidney milkis. [applause] >> good afternoon everybody. thank you so much for coming out on a beautiful day, wednesday afternoon. it is a real honor to be here and an honor to speak before such a distinguished audience, which includes many of my distinguished colleagues in distinguished colleagues and friends. i am not happy that it took me 10 years to write this book, but to some degree it was a labor of love because i have always been interested in how elections and

parties have shaped america's constitutional democracy. the 1912 election was one of those rare campaigns that challenge voters to think seriously about their rights and the constitution. it was the climactic rattle of the progressive era vet rose at the dawn of the 20th century when the country burris try to come to terms with the profound challenges posed by the industrial revolution. for 1912 election was not a major resounding as they sometimes call them. it wasn't like the resolution of 1800, the election of 1860 was the election of 1936. it wasn't that decisive that it was a critical prelude to the new deal. more than this it was a contest that initiated important changes that redefined the meaning and the practice of self-government in the united states. as john suggested the election showcase for impressive

candidates who engaged in a remarkable debate about the future of american politics. theodore roosevelt, it the antagonist in in the. focused on the republican party and ran as the standardbearer of the progressive party. as he famously put it the hamas campaign. william howard taft incumbent republican president who defends conservatism in this election. eugene debs, the labor leader from terre haute indiana who ran on the socialist party ticket at the high tide of socialism. and finally of course woodrow wilson the democratic governor of new jersey who was elected president. get a ph.d. in history and political science. the only ph.d. to become president of the united states and the campaign for a lot of emphasis on his academic credentials. the september issue of a very popular magazine at the time depicted wilson as a roman consul with burning sitting

nearby and is celebrated in latin as an executive teacher and a spokesman of the people. i think that says it all. all four candidates it now is the fundamental changes were occurring in the american political landscape in each attempted to define the progressive answer to the question raised by new industrial order that had grown up within the american constitution. in particular each candidate tried to grapple with the challenge of the trust with the emergence of corporations, the concentration of economic power which pose fundamental challenges to the foundations of the decentralized republic of the 19th century. the 1912 election registered and inspired fundamental changes in american politics suggest the importance of the progressive party. it represents the vanguard of the progressive movement. it was joined by an array of crusading reformers be viewed

roosevelt campaign has their best hope to advance a program of national reconstruction. not only was the driving force of the election, not only did it dominate the agenda but with the important exception of the republican party of the 1850s it was the most important third party in american history. with the celebrated former president roosevelt and the most important figure of his age, the progressive party won over 27% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes. this was extraordinary for a third party. no third-party candidate before or after 1912 had received such a large percentage of the popular vote or as many electoral votes as tr did her go in fact have the democrats not responded to the excitement aroused by tr in the progressive party and nominated their own progressive candidate, and wilson only got the nomination

on the 46th ballot, roosevelt might have been elected to a third term in 1912. as the head of the party and movement dedicated to making america over. as it was the progressive party pioneered a new form of modern politics explicitly defined as modern politics on that would eventually displace the traditional localized democracy shaped by the two-party system which had dominated representative government in in the united states since the beginning of the 19th century. many characteristics of our politics which are conventionally understood as new nor a recent vintage were born of our critically advanced by the progressive party campaign of 1912. having been denied the republican nomination in spite of trouncing the incumbent will burt howard taft since the first primary in american presidential

politics, tr bolted the republican party. then as he put it in his confession of fate at the progressive party convention, he stood at armageddon and the battle for the lord. tr was always very modest. he was drawing support and inspiration from the social gospel movement, whose members of the progressive party as a political expression of their commitment to promote christian social action on earth. it was if you will a religion, a religious left that was important at the beginning of the 20th century. roosevelt and his fellow bull moose drawing from the gospel movement defined the lord's cause as a new idea and practice of democracy. tr's crusade made universal use of the direct by mary at the

time because of tr's promotion, 12 states elected their delegates for the convention through the direct by mary. both joe's been giving caucus and party conventions were dominated by local-- he also assaulted loyalties enchanting candidate center campaigns and in fact a direct relationship between candidates and public opinion and he took advantage of the centrality of a newly emergent mass media. there was not television yet but there were independent newspapers, popular magazines. movies were silent, but they were audio recordings that were very central to the campaign. and then the he convened an energetic an uneasy coalition of self-styled public advocacy groups. 1912 was the first presidential election in which african-americans and women

played an important part. all these features of the progressive party campaign of 1912 make the election of 1912 look more like dad of 2008 than that of 1908. this is not to argue that there may be some history here. i have to be honest with you. this is not to argue so-called modern politics was created out of whole cloth in 1912. the culmination begins much sooner. for example the candidate centered campaign for us became important in american politics in 1896 when william jennings brian, great, and are was the first presidential candidate to campaign throughout the country and he did so by train and the whistlestop tours became a staple of american politics after that. what is different about the progressive party was that it opposed systematic attacks on political parties and the critical world these organizations had played in

american elections and government. championed instead a reconstructed modern politics centered on the presidency as the leading instrument of american democracy, the steward of the public welfare to use tr's beguiling phrase as a party that embraced and went far in legitimizing new social movements and candidate center campaigns the progressive party animated a form of popular rule that evolved over the course of the 20th century and appears for better or worse to have come into its own in recent elections. both roc obama and john mccain channeled tr in 2008. in fact i describe barack obama in the last chapter of my book is the apotheosis of progressive democracy. i confess i'm not exactly sure what that means. [laughter] we can talk about it, but it seemed to make sense. in fact of course neither

mccain nor obama would have won their nomination were it not for the primaries and caucuses where rankin-- rank-and-file candids chose the-- who dominated the political process prior to 1912. roosevelt campaign is the progressive party candidate went beyond reforming the political process. it was in a believe that the constitutional structure of american government with limited federal power and the judiciary striking down of economic regulations and violations of natural rights. that simply could not cope with the realities of the 20th century industrial order. only federal power in the form of regulatory bodies and lost tr and his progressive allies believe could match the power of corporations and trusts. our aim he argued should be to make the united states as far as possible and not merely a

political but also in industrial democracy. although the high ideals of roosevelt's progressive party campaigns were never achieved, it marked a critical juncture between the limited constitutional government rooted in a natural right to understanding in the constitution constitution and an executive centered state that the present to give authoritative expression to mass public opinion. l. the progressive party itself had a brief life. when tr refused to run again in 1916, he doomed the third party to the dustbin of history. still the platform of the progressive party and the causes he championed would endure. it was not as many historians and political scientists said merely an extension of tr's enormous-- it represented the culmination of the concerted

programmatic effort that began three years before, one that included many reformers who were the in the vanguard of progressive reform. for example included the celebrated social worker jane addams, the highly regarded journalist william allen white and the famous progressive intellectual herbert curley who was arguably the profit of progressive democracy and one of the founders of the important journal, new republic are called these individuals played a critical part in the platform's creation. along its length were proposals for national regulation and social welfare that would not be enacted until the new deal. there are striking parallels between the progressive party platform of 1912 and the democratic party platform of 1936. in fact with respect to certain measures, most notably national health insurance, the progressive party prescribed to burkas of commitments remained unfulfilled at the dawn of the

21st century. this was the first time there was a call for a national health insurance system and president obama often points to teddy roosevelt as the first president to propose national health insurance but this did not occur, this proposal, when he was resident, when his reform ambitions were much more moderate record happened in 1912 when he was out of power and scrambling to catch up if you will with the surging popular movement in america. now the progressive party in addition to the social welfare measures also advocated important political reform, noxious measures to strengthen representative democracies such as the right of women to vote in the direct senators as important as those measures were but also reform dedicated to atr called pure democracy. that is democracy purged of the imperium influences of

special-interest. in addition to the universal use of a drug primary which would have been, which does an attack on the party conventions and denied tr's republican nomination these measures included the initiative, referenda on laws that state courts declared unconstitutional , popular referenda on courts. that proposal was limited to stay corporate clearly there were national ambitions to become another part of a platform calling for an easier method to amend the constitution. these are measures i would argue that guide reformers, liberals and conservatives, liberals and conservatives alike who carried on the progressive crusade to remove or lessen the constitutional distance that separates representatives and public opinion. i would say the progressive party's political or shall they call a constitutional program, the second plan if you will, was especially important.

above all these proposals unify the progressive movement and ensured its lasting legacy. its declaration of pure democracy was exalted as a covenant with the people, the deep and abiding pledge to make the people the masters of their constitution. the progressive party dedicated itself to the welfare state. at the same time it stood for the proposition that any program of social welfare could not be adopted unless it was sanctified by public opinion. the modern equivalent they set up town meetings. this distinguishes the progressive movement in the united states i think most importantly from reform movements in europe and great britain. this makes progressivism a sui generis american version of radicalism. as jane addams counseled her fellow progressives, there is no prospect in the united states

were centralized administration was a cardinal vice, that the people would grant legitimacy to a welfare state and would not stay attuned to the preferences, even the biases of public opinion. in fact, the progressive party was seriously threatened by fundamental disagreements among its supporters over issues that betrayed an acute sensitivity if not attachment to the deep-rooted fear of centralized power in american democracy. the party was bitterly divided over civil rights leading to struggles at the progressive party convention over delegate elections in the platform. struggles that turned on whether the party should confront the shame of jim crow. in the end it didn't in states and localities to resolve the matter of race relations in the united states. the progressive party also waged a fractious struggle at the party convention over the appropriate method to tame the

trust, and the argument here figure some of our current debate over the political economy. this was a contest to determine whether interstate trade commissions were considerable administrative discretion should regulate this practice is, whether that would be inappropriate at method or whether that reform is better achieved through aggressive antitrust policy and reforms at the state level. militant new nationalist as they call themselves but by roosevelt prevailed, pledging the party to regulate rather than dismantle corporate power. but this disagreement carried over to the general election. the democratic party under the guidance of their candidates for president woodrow wilson and his adviser louis brandeis embrace the new freedom version of progressivism which prescribe antitrust measures and state regulation as an alternative to the expansion of national administrative power. they were reaching back of

course to the populist movement, to the anti-monopolist them. the new nationalists refer to themselves as neo- hamiltonian's. they were careful about the neo. new freedom progress is referred to themselves as neo- jeffersonians. they asked particularly wilson during the campaign, what would jefferson do were he here today? the answer was always the same, destroy the process of monopoly and unleashed the entrepreneurial talents of his, as wilson put it, men who were on the make. we don't have to help the men who have made it. we have to help the men who are on the make. a sign of the democratic progressive anti-statism, they are jeffersonianism is the democratic platform calls for the establishment of a one term limit for the president. this was a commitment that wilson would abandon almost the minute he is elected president. in the final analysis then, the progressive party platform

disguise fundamental disagreements among leading progressive reformers over the critical issue of the role of the national state, the role of national administrative power in the united states in regulating the economy and society. foreign-policy was hardly mentioned in the 1912 election but no sooner had wilson been elected than this to you of course would improve. nevertheless there was one party doctrine they get a fine progressive. its advocacy of the role of the people and sensing pure democracy was the glue that held together the movement he sought to lead roosevelt made the cause of popular rule the centerpiece of his insurgent presidential campaign. this program itself is was highly controversial, especially calling for popular referenda for important decisions but tr's campaign was even more controversial than the

progressive platform. a champion and unvarnished majoritarianism. toward the end of september, he announced in a speech in phoenix, arizona as he put it, that he would go even further than the progressive party platform in promoting the recall of public officials. he would apply the recall to everybody including the president, even college professors. tr's, the watchword of his campaign was spend and be spent. this was something tr got from paul's second letter to the corinthians and this kind of relationship with public opinion-- lead them but stepped down when they oppose you. this would be the watchword of modern presidential leadership. in the face of this even the great commoner william jennings brian to supported the freedom campaign brushed.

populace method such as the recall should not be nationalized. they should be confined to the states. tr's defense of direct democracy very clearly infused his campaign with deep constitutional significance. its ambition to establish a direct relationship between public officials and mass public opinion the progressive movement seem to challenge the very foundation of republican democracy as james madison described it in the federalist papers. the idea underlying the united states constitution that space created by the institutional devices such as the separation of powers and federalism allowed representatives to govern competently and fairly. to be sure, jefferson and jackson and lincoln celebrated public opinion and i think lincoln said in a speech on time

the public opinion was everything that they believe the states and political parties had to be critical intermediaries between representatives and public opinion. tr's regressiveism threatened to sweep all intermediary institutions off the stage. i can't see. there he is. in the face of roosevelt's powerful challenge to the prevailing doctrine and practice of representative government in the united states, the burden of defending constitutional sobriety fell most heavily on william howard taft, and there is a real sense in which the most important exchange and the constitutional debate of 1912 was between tr and taft. a struggle that flared in the battle for the republican nomination. tapped didn't take easily to this contest with tr. he thought it was humiliating.

he was tasked with being the first president to have to campaign for his party's nomination. he also was personally offended. after all, roosevelt passed the progressive specter to him in 1908. he was tr's heir apparent as a member of tr's administration, as a member of his cabinet taft supported the pragmatic progressive program that tr had pushed while he was in the white house between 1901 and 1909 when roosevelt worked for specific proposals such as the head or an act, reform within existing constitutional boundaries and with the cooperation of the republican party. for example the quartet an important role as the act was written and get taft now found his own efforts to carry on that pragmatic constitutional tradition of reform, the object of scorn, the victim of tr's

celebration of pure democracy. opposed to tr's attack on the party convention, the courts and the constitutional amendment process, taft was publicly condemned as a conservative and with the questing of the progressive movement, this was a pejorative label, signifying that he was the enemy of the people. but tapped eventually embraced the charge of conservatism that was leveled against him. he was a conservative progressive he said work on the battle for the gop nomination invoking the federalist papers and speeches he excoriated the progressive party's attempt as he put it to tear down all the checks and balances of a well-adjusted democratic constitutional representative government. taft's defense of the constitution included support for property. at the same time he insisted that the progressive parties

attack on representative government, on the very idea of representation called for a new idea of republican conservatism. on that was not so rooted in the defense of business as formulated by william mckinley had mark hannah and dear to him the republican party. one that was more in defense of whigish understanding of ordered liberty. as he put it, the real usefulness of the republican party consisted in its conservative tendencies to preserve constitutional government. the most sacred duty of the conservative he said was to uphold the court. it was unthinkable he told an audience in boston, massachusetts, that roosevelt would seriously propose to have questions involving the construction of the constitution. despite taft's indictment that the progressive send to trash

the constitution, despite the hope of tr's political enemies enemies -- magid was not roosevelt but taft who suffered humiliating defeat or good tr thrashed him in the primary contest in even in the contest of ohio which was taft's home state. when the general election taft on only two states, utah and vermont and as joe put it 23.2% of the popular vote. as goes utah so goes vermont. this became the credo of constitutional sobriety. tr's strong showing, the fact he came in second to wilson and his dominance presence in the campaign signaled the birth of modern mass democracy which became part of the living constitution during the 1930s. in fact, by tr's response,

excuse me, by the response to tr's insurgency wilson too towards the end of that campaign began to champion mass opinion. when he was elected president he governed as a new nationalist rather than as a new freedom progressive and therefore he transformed the democratic party into american politics. now, taft and wilson as well as most democrats and republicans were surprised that tr's provocative campaign for pure democracy was so well received in many parts of the country. communicated to those voters directly to the new mass media, independent newspapers and popular magazines through the muckrakers, through audio recordings of tr's most important rhetoric and in movie houses it resonated especially with the fastest-growing areas of the country which best represented america's future.

progressives insisted with considerable political effect that they did not seek to destroy the constitution. they did not seek to establish socialism and an alien form of class conflict on american soil. rather they argued they sought to revitalize and democratize the constitution, to restore the dignity of the democratic individual in the face of the industrial revolution in the heart challenges of constitutional government. ..

and is since allegiance was announced with great fanfare by "the new york times" with the appropriate headline at this then discovers that he is a bold moves constitutional conservatives

feared democracy and public opinion but edison view it as a virtue especially as it would free the country to experiment politically his experiments led to the electric light bulbs replacing gaslights but at the same time the progressive said party politics by a democratic innovations such as the referendum and recall such political experiment eight -- experimentation edison insisted celebrates rather than diminished american individualism. i will close with some very brief remarks having this tough love for my colleague. [laughter] i want to close says there has been so much talk about progressivism and socialism, of course, t are more radical critics agreed that progress of democracy did not pose a radical

threat to the american political tradition although they did grumpily all they took great offense at the fact that progress of democracy intentionally presented itself as an anecdote to socialism. and as an anecdote to socialism with a direct attack on capitalism was a threat in the country, in fact, t.r. most dramatic speech came october in the heart of socialism when he was nearly assassinated while standing in a car outside the hotel going to the milwaukee auditory be and insisted on making the speech anyway. he took advantage of the moment to establish himself as the border of progressivism. he argued it was no accident that he was nearly assassin and this is the work of the

guy of an attitude. this shows a need for a reform movement in that was neither laissez-faire or social misfit shows a need for a reform tradition that would pose an alternative to the radicalism of socialism and would stand between the agreed of the have and have-nots. t.r. stole the thunder that the socialist movement just as it was becoming an important force in american politics. receiving 6 percent of the popular vote the most socialist president candidate had ever gotten but buy all accounts, he would have gotten a lot more votes but for the pre-emption of the progressive party. why no socialism and america? political scientist and historians have asked this question forever provide think the progressive party

is an important part of the story. we can debate whether progressivism has and poses a more insidious threat to representitive constitutionalism but nablus close by saying the fact that the progress of the establishment as an alternative under circumstances of great economic stress following the 1912 election to american democracy. thank you for your patience. [applause] >> bank very much mr. milkis. >> we are fortunate to be joined by three scholars zero john this and let me introduce our other speakers today they would get some brief remarks and we will proceed directly to your questions and some discussion we will hear from

ronald pestritto at the end of the table whose leadership we care and associate professor at hillsdale college and published seven books including woodrow wilson and the roots of modern liberalism drafter him we will hear from william schambra the director of the bradley center of philanthropy and a senior fellow at the hudson institute and the editor of many books including a wonderful series on the constitution published by the american enterprise institute and he has written extensively on the 1912 election as well. please join me in welcoming our panelists. >> [applause] >> i would like to think joe and a mad and here at heritage for inviting me to comment. my thanks most to them most of all for the opportunity

to reflect on what is a terrific book and let me first congratulate sydney on this achievement this book will now i think fair to say become the era of the progress of various sens earlier work on the new deal has become a force dollars of those subjects standard authoritative resource that also dollars in the field will have to contend with and gives them something to a match. also with the arrival of this book it will be clear for some reason if not already but one of the most authorities of the 21st century in america answers in me to become one of the stars of the relatively new subfield of political development within the discipline of science. it is also clear that there

are some folks around washington who could profit from reading and understanding this book. peter russell is still mentioned in his introduction has become a topic of some controversy particularly on the right where folks have been weighing in one way or another about whether or not t.r. and his brand of progressivism should be seen as a source for conservative values perk up while one would think what we have seen over the last year are so with barack obama is strive to implement and extend progressivism would be enough to cure any one of what i think is mostly a romantic fascination with t r&d remains the case that politicians john mccain, and pundits somehow see t.r. progressivism as the cure

for obama's progressivism part of course, it is not a matter of tr or obama's, it is a matter of the progressive best and it is no wonder that these folks advocate political principles that at times are hardly distinguishable from their counterparts on the left or that they now scratch their heads as we stand at the brink of losing what remains of our constitutional liberty in this country. this is not sidney milkis aimed to weigh in exactly as i suspect to share a particular political argument i want to make so let me indemnify him at the outset. his book however, his book does show persuasively and unmistakably that progressivism even the t.r. version was indeed radical and tea are aimed for nothing less and a

comprehensive transformation of the american political order and surprising of course, transforming america ought to be somewhat familiar to us buy now. his book shows how the 2k ways in which the original progressive sought to transform our political system have come to fruition. first comedy shows that the progressive first edition for a hyper democratized national politician presidency and a second come with the democratize politics was combined with any place with a centralized bureaucracy with the redistribution of wealth but largely insulated on public opinion. there is little to quarrel with in this argument and with the book as a whole but since i am here i suppose

for the purpose of getting some discussion going let me bring out thank you key features of his book and exaggerate and overreach a bit too reach some questions because it is hard to argue. first, he rightly sees that roosevelt's drive for greater democratization at all levels of american government is a key point* of departure from the original constitution principles. sid makes roosevelt bush for the plebiscite carried presidency and democracy the focal point* of what he says about t.r. but yes again he shows rightly in my view t.r. preferred means of national governments was a greatly expanded administration which would of necessity be largely remove from political influence.

and sid acknowledges it -- acknowledges with progressivism as a whole there was a tension between the two aims. my question is if there is sufficient appreciation for just how sharp as this contradiction is with progressivism or for how much it shows the strong that it needed some of progressive politics. my own view is that progressives emphasize democratization largely because they saw it as a means to empower themselves and largely because they saw themselves as the authoritative interpreters and leaders of public opinion which they aim to make more of a force of national politics. woodrow wilson makes this abundantly clear in his essay where he struggles with how to democratize without having public opinion debt and a way of

expert bureaucratic governance. he wonders how to find a role for public opinion without "suffering to be model some. [laughter] the connection between this notion and the recent health care debate seems too obvious to ignore for democratic leaders claim the authority of the people until it became clear they themselves were objecting until we were told the democrats knew what the people really wanted even if the people did not realize it. so i wonder if he does not let the progressives off a little too easy on this significant problem but also i wonder if sid makes a bit too much of the differences between wilson and t.r. in the 1912 campaign even if he has moved in the right direction with his earlier works and there is no doubt

as sid points out that the new freedom and nationalism were presented as distinct forms of progressivism and will send along with brandeis very much played up hostility centralized in the administration and hostility that wilson called a paternalistic on the campaign trail. but there can also be no doubt wants one reads the were coming back to the 1880s and 1890's that wilson himself was just as committed as t.r. was to a powerful national state and a centralized administration even more committed after all under the influence of the state's dairy he had imbibed from his term and educated professors published a book in 18 at teenine called of the states and even before that he wrote the numbers 1/3 to that gushed about the centralized bureaucracy of

the bismarck pressure and urged an adoption of that model in the united states. far from being a defender of so-called provincial liberties or states' rights as he allowed himself to put -- to be portrayed wilson was an art as again in the 1880s and 1890's made crystal clear even leading wilson on several occasions to say he celebrated the defeat and this was not of course, he had racial views. sid does not claim wilson was anything other than a progressive and does not make the error that is made in the highly flawed analysis the same question. yet mike tyson knocks sid accounting will send relies heavily on the 1908 book constitutional government and the united states the easily sounding of his works

and thus the analysis runs insufficient that this is on wilson's long held on the bureaucratic nationalistic views. it is not difficult to see why wilson as sid alluded too quickly turn to implementing most of the new nationalism after the election of this was not a sudden conversion but instead a reversion to whom wilson had been for his entire life wants the necessity of playing up his traditional democratic constituency with democrats in particular who were so essential to the nomination once it had gone away. there is one difference that sid points to on the bubble a principle but i will take issue with the and that will be my final point*.

what the book does a nice job show mancow t.r. progressivism was even a call to the original idea of rights it suggests that according to my read he was less hostile or perhaps suggest we ought to take seriously wilson's claim to jeffersonian is some and uses the excellent example of t.r. assault on the judiciary to illustrate how t.r. was essentially a unconcerned with the possibility of majority tierney and the protection of individual property rights. in fact, a speech on the right of the people claims property rights and human rights are opposed to one another they did not as the founders understood them come out of personhood but obstructing the senate social welfare programs that they wanted to employ.

he sees this very clearly but it also appears to buy into the notion that wilson diverged in this point* and refers at one point* to a philosophical dispute to t.r. and wilson with the appropriate balance between what rights and duties and refers to wilson's defense of natural rights and claims that will send celebrated the declaration of independence it is true that wilson did celebrate the declaration of independence but when he did so he did a by first insisting americans not repeat the process that that part which enshrines natural rights as the permanent and a government he made the insistence repeated the and i do not believe it is an exaggeration to say his primary mission was to

undercut and eliminate natural rights principles and his most important book was written specifically for the purpose of undoing in the american mind the notion the origin of government could be found in the rights of nature. been sid book coming to look at the deal on accords they absolutely did disagree and will send simply had a much greater respect for institutions and t.r. did and is mr. natalee with respect to the courts but with the party system of which there was also great difference but the greater respect that wilson had for institutions was not born of some kind of philosophic dispute or a greater regard wilson had four rights the

rather sharing the same progressive philosophy will soon simply sought in institutions the real potential to be:opted for the progressive cause it in the chapter on the judiciary from a constitutional government that said relies upon wilson's attachment to the judiciary becomes because he believes the courts have been in the past and would likely be again in the future leaders and the progress that they would help to drag when you had a recalcitrant people to drag the recalcitrant people forward into the future kicking and screaming if necessary to progress of rulings that might run contrary to the prevailing conservatconservat ive views of the day. if you think of the standing accuracy of that vision and helps to show why will send

with very little on of questions of principle certainly understood more clearly and t.r. flooded would mean in the long term. that is the best i can do to generate some questions by way of the exaggeration but what the heck? what is a remarkable achievement so thanks again to joe of heritage for giving me a chance to say something about it and thank you again for a great book. [applause] >> now we will turn it over to william. >> it is an honor to be here today to celebrate what i think you understand by now is really a truly wonderful edition to our understanding of american politics of history sid book is not only

as we used to say a reporting good political tale but also for us conservatives a critical step toward bringing conservatives back into our understanding of american history and make no mistake about it among all of the group's thave standard accounts of america's past by the professional historians and social scientists telemundo group has been were neglected or misunderstood or disenfranchised and american conservatives think our 1912 has been treated in the past by professionals for the past 100 years for many decades the apt to lead a progressive historians had a monopoly william allen white great t.r. supporters summed up their version this

way 1912 "was the conflict between the aggrandize enterprise and the various ramifications of commercial and industrial overcapacity on the one hand and a protest against that pious pillage on the other. [laughter] if 1912 was plutocracy against your hard did democracy you can guess where historians placed the conservatives. during the '60s and '70s the notion came to be challenged by revisionist historians of the new left gabriel claimed in 1812 the specific utterances of programs of all three candidates of taft and wilson and roosevelt obviously the programs were identical and fundamental and essential unity that extended to the area of ideologies and values where differences between the candidates are largely

contrived by politicians in search of boats seeking to create a youthful image and the revisionist did not challenge the conservatives of 1912 but were still rapacious laissez-faire reactionaries but they simply insisted the progressives were not in fact, protesting pious pillage by tours in fact, joining in its and what they came to call corporate liberalism and at any rate sid history of 1912 takes is beyond the easy stereotypes and supplies actual facts about the election by pursuing a radical technique you want to know what the election was really about comity attention to what the participants in it said it was about and what he found and here i turned especially to the conflict between taft

and t.r. was that there was a significant difference between the two contrary to the revisionist historians but the difference was not the top receivers is democracy contrary to the p aggressiveness story but the fact is the taft republicans cannot be dismissed as a laissez-faire reactionary. new york senator was a self-proclaimed hambletonian and his support for expanse of federal power and believe day much more active national government in the new age of corporations was essential to protect the rights of the people from their overweening power as had been the case with henry cabot lodge and taft himself had been an ardent square d there during the t.r. administration and indeed he had helped the would be his

successor in 1908 considering him the most thoughtful and loyal advocate of his policies reported to have said i will walk on my hands and knees from the white house to the capital to see him made president but as sid notes a vast and principal bishop and ultimately did develop in 1912 between taft and t.r. republicans but not the proper extent of federal power for neither t.r. nor taft claimed to the doctrine of laissez-faire but the role of the constitution in american life as this charter of democracy speech t.r. decided to challenge in some would say dismantle the constitution as the framework for focusing and refining the public will and not all the endorsed the recall of decisions and about this particular measure t.r. had this to say

it is a matter of mere terminology whether this is called a method of construing or applying the constitution or a quick message to get the constitution amended it certainly is far superior to the ordinary method of getting the constitution amended underlying his disdain for the constitution the progressive party platform would promise to make constitutional amendments far easier and speedier and simpler than at present this charter of democracy platform was deeply alarming and they understood the constitution to be an essential framework for securing liberty in the face of the turbulent passion of democracy only three representitive government and judiciary a strong the senate and other devices the founders of politics had americans manage to overcome democracy

through history only thereby could they secure the enactment and execution of public policy as well as protection of the right as pronounced in the declaration of independence none of these essentials had been changed by the great changes of the new era in their view. of course, sophisticates then and ever since have mocked this devotion to the constitution and declaration the new republic ridiculed in 19154 still being squarely committed to the theory of democracy based upon natural rights and wrongs cents a banded elsewhere there can of course, be no such thing as a right which is independent of the state. but the taft republicans in spite of the progressive scorn and in spite of the french ships that they had established with t. our shows to break with him over what they regarded as

rejection of the constitution and to fight his bid for renomination. the story of the republican nominating contest of 1912 this fall of dramatic conflict ranging from low entry to high principle all of which sit conveys wonder if leave the governor of illinois was prepared to call out the national guard to suppress street violence during the republican convention and it was rumored that barbwire was concealed underneath of bunting platform and we think politics is rough today. aft days after taft secured renomination the chief supporters understood full well that he understood very little chance of being elected by for them that was beside the point* they believed that they have already accomplished the one thing that year that they had denied t.r. the powerful electoral machinery of the

republican party that will surely have elected him than been turned to securing sweeping alterations of the american constitution as a direct result of the lonely principled and fiercely embattled stance taken by taft and law judge a stand that has been ignored or culminated by generations of scholars the text of the constitution comes down to us today almost as a demerged from the pens of the founders, not again in the 20 1/3 21st century with such an explicit frontal assaults we launched against our founding document of course, it has been misinterpreted and abused in countless ways in 1787 but it is not the sprawling mutual contradictory indecipherable documented surely would have been had the progressives

succeeded in their intention to open it too easy and expeditious amendments but instead it remains possible for americans to consult the framers with the assurance that they still shape our politics today and it is possible for conservatives to rally around the declaration and to find the ground for a principal defense of limited energetic government anti-decentralized civil society but a few years ago this might have seemed of interest only to a handful of scholars in the outposts like the heritage foundation but today the declaration and constitution are at the part of what has become called the teapartiers movement as a result of the principled stand as our founding documents are still

able to evoke in the public at large sum of the high regard and even reverence the progressives had made every effort to to strip. just as america's religious energy's have surged wants again in spite of all of these, the predictions of inevitable secularization so the constitution and declaration are reacquiring for many an aura of divine inspiration in spite of a full century of sustained debunking by the sophisticated and the cynical but none of this would have been possible today without the critical last gasp stand against the t.r. constitutional program and republican presidential contest of 1912 as a result of that effort and contrary to the title of this panel panel, 1912 was not the election that transformed america but in the deeper

sense that preserved america as it came down from the declaration of independence from the constitution. [applause] >> thank you very much to all panelist for fine remarks professor milkis has allowed us to go straight to questions we have about 20 minutes. please raise your hand you have a question and wait for the microphone to reach year and identify yourself and your affiliation. thank you. [inaudible] [laughter] >> i will be happy to begin. taft and the taft republicans would make modern libertarians very uncomfortable no question about it they were all

believers in the power pole federal government but in order to understand how they are conservative get progressive one has to make the distinction between constitutional progressivism and legislative is and what has to reflect on our current experience just how conservative are neo conservatives who say things like i believe that conservative welfare state? one 1/2 to put that experience of a contemporary experience. >> i would add one of the things that has always interested me is the relationship of the party system as it grows out of democracy what relationship that has to the constitution and i think one of the

things that tempered that nationalism was the deep commitment to politics to point* to the fact lincoln also had a deep commitment of party politics and the party acknowledged and defended kept the adr rooted so what's with the localities and an opposition to the t.r. attack on the party leaders, i know they are not perfect but the state organizations are the foundation of party politics which is central to popular government and the united states and data how power over the organization i cannot simply dismiss these people that is the work of the localities that is not the exact relationship that was talked about but it keeps them committed to the

system of that my colleague would insist is a very important part of the american constitutional tradition. >> in his remarks and makes more sense than the book to underscore it was not a difference between progressivism but was a fair libertarian constitutionalism and a funny thing goes the progressives themselves often seem to make the mistake otherwise that in their debate with the founders who understand them they're not talking so much about the constitution and has it has been brought to them are translated to them through the social right wing of the century with an extreme highly problematic

of view of the constitution. that serves to exacerbate some problems i think. >> we have a question down here. >> >> my question is the 1912 election you have the four parties that split up the electorate and the 6% of the vote. it seems that is a determined margin in the contemporary political climate and it is significant even than but to what degree did the democratic party let me phrase it the progressive party was up for grabs this would not be a bible party we will try to bring these groups into the republican

party to what degree did they activities seek to bring the socialist party roosevelt had broken the back of to bring them into the mainstream to make sure that 6% was coming out of 1912? >> not very much that does not begin until fdr and then new deal. meant clearly to appeal to the labor unions. that is not really a presence but what short circuits more under wilson but world war i comes into play then the revolution that relieve reinforces the movement away and focuses on what can be accomplished and in fact, in 1918 this

sedition act was passed during world war i that made it virtually all the goal to speak against the war and this points to a interesting factoids about progressivism who parted? here is a good trivia question who pardoned? >> warren g. harding the conservative republican and immense civil liberties and rights pardons a socialist to was prosecuted and in their celebration of public opinion that the only caveat to that story is that i read the brief looking at facts of harding's attorney general and defense and you know, what it is based on? no legal argument that public opinion the american people kind of like this guy we don't socialist around

the country but he stands for that is the excuse given for releasing it. [laughter] >> just a footnote on a question about taft the court struck down a loss of minimum wages a brilliant o opinion written by sutherland but he gave a scathing dissent relaying against the rights. if you add the vote to four t.r. two taft you get the votes of 1916.

this looks like a republican phenomenon if you see where was but obviously people like this this is what moves their way into the democratic party have we looked at this? was the main the republican phenomenon? >> four t.r.? good to see you. what you doing down here? [laughter] i thought you were in massachusetts. i am talking in amherst and helping you would be up there. most of the support t.r. got was from the progressive wing of the republican party it wasn't clear the public was very confused out which party would become the

progressive party the republicans are the democrats and in this campaign if the will because of wilson winning said the democratic party becomes the more progressive party although not decided they sell but wilson also drew support from disaffected democrats some who stuck with wilson but key ones like those down in colorado who pioneered bed juvenile court to supported both the progressive parties and then all of these people the social workers we would call them advocacy groups now who was outside of the american politics and the way of getting into american politics and these become important during the new deal. >> the third party would

allow them to break away. >> yes. there reason wilson is able to win reelection roosevelt refuses to run that had something to do with progressivism but most of the progressives and say they are governing as a new nationalist and praised in the new republic with editorials for breaking the pledge to the democratic platform. [laughter] but this is a great thing that although the party died a substantial number i cannot remember exactly but a substantial number of the bulletin progressives supported wilson i have it in my book i cannot remember what percent and that was

the key in defeating use in a close election that the tipping point* was hiring johnson a progressive governor of california that was t.r. is a running mate in 1912 he may be considered progressive then maybe 81 the election of you refuse to do so by johnson threw his support to will send and will send one california had not he would not have been elected. >> just a quick vote but no the best thing to read is the first chapter progressive democracy were cruelly says the progressivism this poses as progressivism but when he was trying to do was to make it deliberately vague and crony basically acknowledges that it is almost embarrassing at this point*. >> i want to make a point*

that i am not as sure as r.j. pestritto it is a struggle sometimes i think there is no difference between new nationalism and freedom and sometimes i think there is a difference and one thing he does is appoints brandeis to the court and he is at the center of the case which is the nine delegation and dr. bosch -- doctor and so i see the brandeis opposition i wonder if it is true there is no difference. >> a former republican party official to some extent i really interested. >> were you doing now? dear credentials now.

[laughter] of. >> that is what the taft roosevelt split fascinated me and of course, i was taught that t.r. felt taft the trade the agenda i am wondering to what extent that is true or to what extent t.r. more expansive progressive agenda was the byproduct of him being the youngest axe president in history spending four years out of power with nothing to do that had to go back and do something to find his life worthwhile? >> >> that is a good choice you have given us. [laughter] >> the thain is comity are in a sense, his radical progressivism of 1912 beginning with the new nationalism speeches, to some degree as some suggest

let the extent of radicalism was on necessary for him to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish ap were really interested in the political angle he would not have continued to push the most radical doctrines that were obviously alienating even his own progressive friends. the fact of the matter is had rose about not to embrace the radical constitutional provisions and stock with the new nationalism of 1910, about which was said my only question is what is new about it? we're all hambletonians here. i don't understand it. >> but certainly lodge would have loved and was looking forward to t.r. coming back and running for president

again because he was planning to be his ally. but ruutu said i care more for one but and on and t.r. best that i do for taps whole body talking about the 320-pound man. that is quite a statement. [laughter] but it would be very easy for roosevelt to pursue a practical political agenda that would have gotten him into the white house and 1912 cell i think historians have always been guilty of either sketching their radical laissez-faire first is the good guys on the one hand but they end up saying things like it was just roosevelt ambition for the taft political by activity

so he was firing cabinet members and all ways of avoiding the principal division of 1912. >> coming back to politics with this speech he made that he felt this was excellent and he regretted from the moment he made the statement i will not run from another term i think he worried by the he regretted it but it was hard to step back from as soon as he left office he felt very alienated and asia is to get back into power a man of extraordinary and dangerous position one of the more dangerous demographics -- demagogues we have had. and the fascinating question and and why a he embraced that pure democracy and i

think the progressive movement is the wave of the future that this is a movement that is popular and cresting and includes people like jane addams who was very popular and getting a lot of credit to and t.r. who was very critical of the infatuation with democracy embraces it to the very 1912 and maybe he miscalculated betting the progressive movement was belgrade of the future but if you read my book it would suggest even though he lost the election tactically there is a real sense in which he won the election of 1912 because the causes he championed with extraordinary panache he was a great actor and lives well beyond the nomination. >> we have time for one quick last question.

>> my name is steven roberts and i am from the heritage foundation also a student ever the 20th century church history in america and that includes the takeover of a wider array of nominations and you can make a lot of argumentation from the presbyterian church of that you saw the denial of the authority of the various creeds the doctor and you did not experience rather than experience of dr. and and and you also had a cynical takeover in order to achieve power. have been a view studied the parallels between that ecclesiastical directory and the political and if there is any coordination between the two in a concrete way?

think you. [laughter] >> there is a strong relationship between t.r. and the social gospel willses teacher of course, of the economist of the social movement there are very strong reactions there. >> i have to say that i have never written about politics and religion before i did this book and one of the fun things about research is you discover things you did not expect to see was the other thing how important religiosity was an people may have known that that

most of what i am familiar with presents this as an attempt to establish a rule of expert governed by administrative science a lot of this populism comes from the social gospel movement and roosevelt was never a fan of it but trying to catch up with the movement with the parade he thinks will be very important and we battled and obviously recognizing this is critical forever to the progressive party and it is a fascinating movement i have not begun to figure out if for claims to be nondenominational i taught for many years and a nonsectarian brandeis university saw i have the sense how we strike a

balance but it is difficult to strike. oscar strauss when the most prominent figures ran on the progressive party ticket and got more votes than t.r. and was seen as the progressive party the great amusement of the press singing onward christian soldiers. [laughter] i cannot imagine my grandfather singing backed no matter how revved up. [laughter] but if there is a time the social gospel movement become the intolerable protestantism behind the nativism that it invades the progressive movement the anti-prohibition stuff and roosevelt sees this and it is something that frankly of sets him telling him that his speeches to friendly to

catholics and he needs to back off. [laughter] fdr figured that out was a good thing. >> does a quick comment i have not done any work on it but i am sure you are finding when you come at this material without the lens of the progressive presuppositions i am sure you are discovering that there is indeed a lot of history yet to be written and for any young people in this audience or the c-span audience you are interested in good dissertation topics i can guarantee there are 10,000 dissertations written on the progressive party or eight goals and 20,000 dissertations maybe two or three written on the conservatives in that era with anything like a

sympathetic eye toward them. there's a lot of work the conservatives need to do to recover on history. >> thanks again professor milkis his very fine book "theodore roosevelt, the progressive party, and the transformation of american democracy" copies are available for purchase outside the auditorium and the author is happy to sign copies as well. this concludes our panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> host: hello i have the honor to be here today with

her eight markopolos he is the author of no one would listen about the story of bernie madoff. harry describes madoff that he perpetuated the greatest financial crime in history of more than a decorated stole $55 billion from many investors all over america and europe sell you are a chartered financial all analysts as well as a certified fraud analyst and a background in the financial industry and adds a fraud investigator tell us what does it mean to be a quantitative analyst what does this mean in terms of what you do every day and why you were the% to ferret out the madoff fraud? >> guest: nawaz day portfolio manager managing billion of dollars in equity derivatives-- derivatives